Birthers: We Were Right. The BC is a FRAUD!!! Obama Lovers: Debunk THIS!

Originally posted by roadtoad
He's a provable criminal for that fact. He said it in front of the whole world. That truth cannot be deminished in any way.

Here's proof.

That is not "proof", that is a "conspiracy theory" just like every other birther theory.

I think people get confused on this issue, they think that if the same theories are repeated over and over again that they magically transform from theory to fact. But they don't, they remain the exact same stale, unsubstantiated arguments that go nowhere. The truth of the matter is this, no matter what evidence is laid out the birthers will NEVER be satisfied with it. First they said they needed to see the birth certificate to believe, so the short form was offered. But that wasn't acceptable, they claimed only the long form would be sufficient evidence. The long form was produced and now people complain that it's a forgery. I think if someone could produce a home video of Obama's mom giving birth to him under a "Welcome to Hawaii" sign it would still not be enough. Anything can be forged in this day and age, so what's the point? If a birther believes the BC can be forged, then surely they also believe that any other evidence that could ever be provided could also be forged. If you want him out of office, this is NOT the way to go about it because as far as the government is concerned the issue is dead. Funnel your energies elsewhere!

reply to post by SavedOne

First they said they needed to see the birth certificate to believe, so the short form was offered. But that wasn't acceptable, they claimed only the long form would be sufficient evidence. The long form was produced and now people complain that it's a forgery. I think if someone could produce a home video of Obama's mom giving birth to him under a "Welcome to Hawaii" sign it would still not be enough.

Have you read this entire thread? All of your comments have been argued in this thread extensively. Again, this is why empirical evidence is needed. Your "belief" of the limited information and documents presented by Hawaii and the MSM to date is insufficient to prove anything to a scientific community. To date, empirical evidence has not been presented. Examination and analysis of Hawaii State Department of Health microfiche records for corroboration and any original documents dated 1961 are absent. Read the thread, try to have an open mind, be enlightened. Official indisputable evidence regarding forgery of other official records (i.e., Kenyan birth records, passport, transcripts, etc.) has not been provided either. One lie leads to another. Sunlight is the best disinfectant!

These threads are sickening and racially motivated all becase A BLACK MAN IS IN THE WH! Nothing more, nothing less and you have quite a few posters putting emphasis on his full name which further proves my point of this being racially motivated and when asked to present an original thought onle of the following is issued:

1. He's a Marxist!
2. He's a Muslim!
3. He's a Socialist!
4. He's The Antichrist!
5. He's Kenyan!

When each and everyone gets challenged they restart the list. It is a case of the bumb and blind leading the dumb and blind.

No real platform or anything!

Intense hatred for anyone who is not white as well as anyone who has a foreign sounding name.

Yes, of course, the disinfo agents always come up with their lies.
Its a crime because Barack Obama said that 'This is a true and correct copy of my long form BC from Hawaii.'
That puts him in the chain of evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Disinto agents can talk all the crap they want.
So the disinto shills and others will state, 'well, that's not the real BC'.
That argument is already covered.
The 9th circuit of appeals supenoed sp? the head of the dept of health in Hawaii to produce the actual long form BC by May 29th. Well, May 29th is sunday, and mail doesn't run on that day. As of today, May 27th, the BC hasn't been given to the 9th circuit. This would be the last mailable day before May 29th. Therefore, the Dept of Health is already in arrears.
It would shock me if they actually decide to comply with the law.
This means that more than one crime has already been committed.
This actually happened before. Back in 2009, Supreme Court Justice Sauer sapeoned (still can't spell it) the Dept of Health in Hawaii to show Barack Obama's real BC. The Dept of Health ignored the court that time as well.

reply to post by roadtoad


They want to make the bc leave the vault so that they can make it dissapear from there. Not going to happen. No one who isn't an employee of The Haww Dept Of Health will ever get to see it, nontheless touch it. Everyone can gripe and moan all they want but it will never change this fact ever.

To rephrase the thread a thousand times will always result in the same answer. Why are we even being forced to waste our time and effort disproving something that's already been disproven a hundred thousand times.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Intense hatred for anyone who is not white as well as anyone who has a foreign sounding name.

edit on 27-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

If you have taken the time to read this entire thread and understood all of the information provided with an open mind, you would not make this comment. This is NOT about race or color. Don't attempt to fuel a racial fire that is not the premise for many of the arguments presented on this thread. It is about the legitimacy of Obama's records to be the POTUS and why so much time, money, and energy has been expended by him to cover up his past. When the questions that are important to many people are answered with empirical evidence, the truth may prevail. Again, this is not about race.

Originally posted by roadtoad
Yes, of course, the disinfo agents always come up with their lies.
Its a crime because Barack Obama said that 'This is a true and correct copy of my long form BC from Hawaii.'
That puts him in the chain of evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Disinto agents can talk all the crap they want.
So the disinto shills and others will state, 'well, that's not the real BC'.
That argument is already covered.
The 9th circuit of appeals supenoed sp? the head of the dept of health in Hawaii to produce the actual long form BC by May 29th. Well, May 29th is sunday, and mail doesn't run on that day. As of today, May 27th, the BC hasn't been given to the 9th circuit. This would be the last mailable day before May 29th. Therefore, the Dept of Health is already in arrears.
It would shock me if they actually decide to comply with the law.
This means that more than one crime has already been committed.
This actually happened before. Back in 2009, Supreme Court Justice Sauer sapeoned (still can't spell it) the Dept of Health in Hawaii to show Barack Obama's real BC. The Dept of Health ignored the court that time as well.

I believe the subpoena for the BC reads 6/29/2011.



The subpoena is identified as "Invalid" here

www.scribd.com...






The latest video of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals proceeding, OrlyTaitz argument,




And the U.S. Government District Attorney's argument,

No, that's not the latest. There is a third part to the May 2nd, ninth district ruling. It hasn't been posted yet.

Meanwhile, just when you thought it couldn't get sillier, (presenting a 'true and correct' copy of 'my long form BC'......without a raised seal)
Well, it got sillier. Here's Obama implying that you're not eligible for POTUS until someone can prove you were in your mother's womb for nine months.

______beforeitsnews/story/668/223/OBAMA:_Not_All_Native_Born_Are_Eligible_To_Be_President_Hospital_Records_Are_Required_To_Determine_Eligibility. .html

Originally posted by roadtoad
No, that's not the latest. There is a third part to the May 2nd, ninth district ruling. It hasn't been posted yet.

Meanwhile, just when you thought it couldn't get sillier, (presenting a 'true and correct' copy of 'my long form BC'......without a raised seal)
Well, it got sillier. Here's Obama implying that you're not eligible for POTUS until someone can prove you were in your mother's womb for nine months.

______beforeitsnews/story/668/223/OBAMA:_Not_All_Native_Born_Are_Eligible_To_Be_President_Hospital_Records_Are_Required_To_Determine_Eligibility. .html

Thanks, I updated my post. There are 4 parts. Thanks again!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


No an intense hatred of FRAUD
and Fraudsters

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
These threads are sickening and racially motivated all becase A BLACK MAN IS IN THE WH! Nothing more, nothing less and you have quite a few posters putting emphasis on his full name which further proves my point of this being racially motivated and when asked to present an original thought onle of the following is issued:

1. He's a Marxist!
2. He's a Muslim!
3. He's a Socialist!
4. He's The Antichrist!
5. He's Kenyan!

When each and everyone gets challenged they restart the list. It is a case of the bumb and blind leading the dumb and blind.

um he is less than half black

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

No an intense hatred of FRAUD
and Fraudsters

Where were each and everyone of y'all when 43 ignored the Constitution and put people in jail and camps for even daring to question anything? Where were you when 43 implemented "Free Speech Zones"? Where were you when 43 almost bankrupted this nation? That's right, nowhere to be heard so to suddenly care now means you are late in the game and your opnion means nothing nowadays. Y'all want to suddenly care now? Get real.

reply to post by Danbones


His father is full African American.

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Intense hatred for anyone who is not white as well as anyone who has a foreign sounding name.

edit on 27-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

If you have taken the time to read this entire thread and understood all of the information provided with an open mind, you would not make this comment. This is NOT about race or color. Don't attempt to fuel a racial fire that is not the premise for many of the arguments presented on this thread. It is about the legitimacy of Obama's records to be the POTUS and why so much time, money, and energy has been expended by him to cover up his past. When the questions that are important to many people are answered with empirical evidence, the truth may prevail. Again, this is not about race.

My mind is more open then most people combined and can see between the lines and can see past every single "smoke and mirrors" campaign of the last decade. What money? The couple's networth combined is reported at less then $6 Mill so to spend all that money would be totally cost prohibiitve.

If he was white or had a name like John Smith would we be really having this convo? The answer is a big phat NO!

Originally posted by roadtoad
Well, it got sillier. Here's Obama implying that you're not eligible for POTUS until someone can prove you were in your mother's womb for nine months.

Having read your post and the link you provided, I seriously hope you are trolling, because to take that article and its premise seriously one has to be delusional, and not in the casual sense that I’ve used the term, but the actual psychiatric condition.

The article presents the proposition that Obama “has crafted a completely heretofore unknown POTUS requirement which states that not all of those who are ‘native born’ in the USA are eligible.” The author states that “[a]ccording to Obama, one is not ‘born’ a US citizen unless one has been in their mother’s womb for nine months.”

How does the author of the article reach this conclusion? He cites a statement by then-state Senator Obama, during a Senate discussion about an abortion bill, in response to another Senator that proposed to treat an unborn baby as “a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.”

Obama responds by cautioning doing this by saying “whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term.”

Typical of birthers, the author grabs the “a nine-month old child” statement by Obama, the average gestation time of a human, completely ignores the context and meaning of the broader statement, and makes the outrageous claim that Obama means that only a child that was “born after nine months in the womb” is a US citizen.

Even if one, for a moment, suspends all critical thinking and indulges this absurd proposition, if Obama seriously believed a person must have spent 9 months in the womb to be a US citizen, why would the opinion and statement of then-state Senator Barack Obama be of any relevance to whether Obama himself is a natural born citizen or not? His opinion doesn’t change the law, nor his status, even if he seriously believed this absurd proposition.

The Constitution of the United States says those who are entitled to citizenship are those “born in the United States.” An unborn child is, per the Constitution itself, not a citizen.

And who is the genius that wrote this article? Leo Donofrio. One of the “top three eligibility law experts.”

roadtoad, are you honestly expecting us to take this article seriously? But, more importantly, and concerning, do you honestly believe the premise of this article?

reply to post by aptness


He's not trolling but simply point out how assinine the entie Birther ordeal is. The part of the speech by Obama was to show how disconnected from reality the Birthers really are. It's more of a "WTF" moment then anything else. A few Birthers here even posted asking to see his Selective Service Registration, Schooling Records, Baptismal Certificate for which none has anything to do with anything.

Originally posted by roadtoad
The 9th circuit of appeals supenoed sp? the head of the dept of health in Hawaii to produce the actual long form BC by May 29th. Well, May 29th is sunday, and mail doesn't run on that day.

The date of presentation and review of the requested data is clearly spelled out in the *invalid* subpeona as 6/29/11

I'm confused, Why is the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals "supposedly" issuing this subpeona when the subpeonas posted to date (5/24 & 5/26 - long after Orly's 9th Circuit Ct. presentation) reflect the US District Court - District of Hawaii - including a different Judge?

When are these 9th Circuit Ct. subpeonas expected to be posted - especially since the one issued yesterday was posted today?

It would seem that the SS Admin did in fact respond to Orly's claims of non-reponsiveness on their part. The following link makes for interesting reading. www.scribd.com...